Twenty classes offered in the Fall semester, fourteen from 100 or 101 level and six from 200 level courses, were randomly selected and surveyed (N: 784) with the SASSI Scale. Special thanks are due to the following Departments and individuals for their assistance in this survey. Physical Anthropology (Eric Wise), Biology (Larry Jon Friesen), Computer Information Sciences (J. Sodusta), Computer Applications (M. Earle and Mindy Mass), Communications (Ronald Adler and Mary Wiemann), Electronic Computer Technology (K. Richards), English (James Stevens), Film Studies (Mace Perona), Geography (Janet Schultz), Health Education (Ellen O'Connor), History (John Eggler), Journalism (Patricia Stark), Nursing (Claudia Mitchell), Philosophy (Joe White), Physics (Michael Young), Psychology, and Radiography (Laura Krawezyk).
The findings summarized in the following tables suggest that about 75 % of our students are able to manage the demands and challenges of City College courses, relatively free of serious problems and/or difficulties. The corollary: 25 % are in another boat, floundering and in need of attention, and in which 9.2 % are having a very difficult time.
Acknowledgement and thanks are also due the 784 students who completed the survey, who sometimes complain of being "surveyed to death," but who, through their participation in this survey, contribute significantly to the institutional mission of enhancing student success. Finally, I also want to express my appreciation to the FEC program for its support of this project, and to the work study student Jon Shepard Reynolds whose painstaking and conscientious help in data entry proved invaluable.
A significant and increasing percentage of college students are perceived by faculty as under prepared in the basic academic skills, study skills, commitment and disposition toward learning needed to succeed in college. Based on the recommendations made by SBCC faculty to promote student success, a self-assessment, self-diagnosis and self-referral instrument was developed to help identify the academic, motivational, affective and situational factors which undermine student success. The Self-Assessment for Success Screening Inventory - SASSI was administered to a randomly selected sample of 784 SBCC students to establish norms in 19 areas related to student success. The total SASSI scale score was found to be significantly correlated (r -.53, p < .001) with GPA. Each of the 19 items was also significantly associated with GPA. The findings also indicate that on average 25% of the students surveyed are having significant problems managing the demands and challenges of college, of which 9.2% are having a very difficult time. The SASSI instrument enables a student to assess his or her strengths and areas in need of strengthening. It provides norms and guidelines for self-diagnosis. The one page instrument also list the self-referral resources and services available on campus to promote student success.
Shortly after the midterm period in this Fall semester, a randomly selected sample of SBCC students were asked to complete the Self-Assessment for Success Screening Inventory. The SASSI instrument solicits self-report ratings in 19 areas of cognitive, affective, behavioral and social functioning believed to be related to college success. The SASSI reflects a refinement of an earlier SAS scale; and the current survey extends the findings from an earlier survey of Social Science Division students at SBCC. This report presents the background and findings from the current campus-wide survey of SBCC students. The survey serves to identify and document the student-centered variables that contribute most to college success.
California community college faculty report that a significant and increasing percentage of their students "lack the basic academic skills, study skills, commitment and/or disposition toward learning needed to succeed in their courses (Preparing to Serve the Student of the Future, CLCC, 1996)." In response to this report, a study group was formed at SBCC to address the educational preparedness of SBCC students. The SBCC study group conducted a survey of faculty perceptions of student preparedness, identified factors which undermined student success, and recommended a set of strategies to increase student preparedness (Strategies for Promoting Student Success in Their Courses; August, 1996).
Recommendation #3 suggested that "Consideration should be given to instituting a college-wide Early Alert Program. In addition to assessing student acquisition of the subject matter, faculty would be asked to administer in class a standardized self-scored Assessment and Referral Form designed to identify academic, motivational and situational factors that may undermine student success in the course (SBCC Report; 1996, p.8)."
There are many assessment instruments that have been developed to assess academic, motivational and situational factors related to academic success. The Achievement Motivation Profile (Mandel, Friedland & Marcus, 1996) is a 140 item questionnaire that measures personality traits in the areas of achievement motivation, inner resources, interpersonal strengths and work habits. It is a psychometrically sound instrument with good reliability and validity. However, its focus on engrained personality characteristics makes it less relevant to identifying changeable behaviors related to student success. A review of 16 other well-developed assessment instruments reveal similar shortcomings: either focused too much on personality characteristics, or not sufficiently focused on the kinds of student behaviors perceived by faculty as especially relevant to student success.
The College Success Factors Index (Hallberg, Hallberg & Sauer, 1993) is an 80 item questionnaire that measures eight factors presumed to be related to student success: control, competition, task precision, wellness, expectations, time management, college and family involvement. The CSFI has been used in 10 colleges and over the years has been administered to 60,000 students. Norms are well-established, as is the reliability of the measures. However, its predictive validity is arguably low: subscale correlates with GPA average .25 (accounting for 6% of the variance in GPA), with a total score correlate of .35 (12% of the variance).
For the purposes of promoting student success through assessment and feedback, a major shortcoming of these instruments lies with the fact that the instruments are overly lengthy, require extensive and ongoing administrative support and resources to purchase, administer, score and interpret the results to the students. Moreover, these instrument do not meet the need identified by SBCC faculty (Strategies for Promoting Student Success in Their Courses; August, 1996): to administer in class a standardized self-scored assessment and referral form and which identifies academic, motivational and situational factors that may undermine student success. The instruments afford neither self-scoring nor self-referral. Accordingly, this report summarizes the progress made and results obtained in developing an instrument for self-assessment, self-diagnosis and self-referral in the promotion of student success.
Items in the SAS scale were derived from the 1996 SBCC Report on student preparedness in which faculty reported wide ranging deficiencies shared by a large percentage of students. Initially, fifteen items were written for the SAS scale and were grouped into three areas: basic literacy skills, key college success skills, and attitude/commitment to education. In addition, information was solicited about gender, course units carried, hours worked, and grade point average.
Psychometric scale development seeks to satisfy four criteria: ease and clarity in administration, reliability, validity and utility. The SAS is self-administered and takes about ten minutes to complete. Initial feedback from students in a research methodology class was largely positive with some suggestions for refinement.
The test-retest reliability of the SAS scale was assessed by readministering the scale to students in a general psychology class with a two week interval between administrations. The second administration occurred about one week prior to mid-term. A Spearman-Brown correlation coefficient of .76 was obtained (N:113), thus indicating a fair degree of measurement reliability.
The criterion and construct validity of the SAS scale can be assessed by examining the relationship of SAS scores to academic performance and grades. Higher scores on the SAS scale indicate greater amounts of self-reported academic difficulties. In several psychology classes (N:152), a negative correlation coefficient (-.32, p. = .001) was obtained between student scores on the midterm exam and total SAS scores. For those students who reported their G.P.A. (about 65%) in general psychology, philosophy and political science classes (N:216), a negative correlation coefficient (-.54, p. = .001) was obtained between G.P.A. and total SAS scores.
These preliminary findings showed that the SAS scale could be easily self-administered and self-scored, and that it provides reliable and valid results. Moreover, to the extent that SBCC students can assess their own level of preparedness, compare their results with SBCC norms, and reflect upon the relationships between performance, motivation and success, then students would have a basis and guidelines for seeking assistance in the particular areas indicated.
The SAS scale was revised based on results and recommendations from students and colleagues in the pilot testing stage. Instructions for using the scale were improved. The items were rewritten to improve clarity and specificity. A 5-point scale was substituted for the 4-point scale for the rating of each item, to improve the interpretive and psychometric properties of the scale. An open-ended question was included: "What else or what interferes most with your success at SBCC?" Demographic information was solicited at the end instead of at the beginning of the scale. Finally, a self-diagnostic "college success temperature scale" was included, together with a detailed listing of college resources for self-referral purposes. To calibrate the "college success temperature scale," and to establish normative data on the scale and scale items, a survey of SBCC students was required.
The revised scale was administered to a random sample of students from general education courses in the Social Sciences. To draw a representative sample of Social Science Division students, sixteen classes (two from each Department) were randomly selected from all the GE classes offered in the Social Sciences Division. The students (N: 569) who participated in the survey were drawn from classes in anthropology, communications, ethnic studies, history, philosophy, political science, psychology and sociology. The sample is representative of beginning general education students who are often at higher risk of failing than the more focused and mature students. The sample represents the target population of particular concern to faculty and administration.
Overall, the total SAS scale score bore a significant negative correlation (-.46, p. < .001) with GPA. Students who reported having more problems also reported lower GPAs. All items in the SAS scale were significantly correlated with self-reported GPA, but more so for male than for female students. Time management was a significant problem for 50.6% of the men, and for 44.6% of the women. In relation to part time jobs, 53.6% of the men were working 20 or more hours per week; 44% of the women were as well. Attending classes was a problem for 22.2% of the men, and or 11.1% of the women. For 18% of the men and for 6.6% of the women, commitment and motivation to succeed in college was a third order or an even less significant priority. This is further evident in the finding that 18.8% of the men and 8.7% of the women report watching on average 4 or more hours of television per day. Moreover, 36.8% of the men, 19.4% of the women, report that for every hour in class they only put in an additional 1/2 hour or less of time for study and assignments.
Although work and time management problems appear to be key contributors to impaired academic success, other factors are also involved. Personal problems were significant for 32.8% of the men and for 20.5% of the women. However, both men (54.2%) and women (44.8%) reported that it was difficult and problematic to seek out and get help when they needed it. Close to 30% of both men and women report having problems in the more traditional areas of academic performance: reading class assignments; participating actively in class; memorizing course-related material. When averaged across the 15 areas assessed by the SAS scale, 31.1% of the men and 24.3% of the women report having problems in areas directly related to college success. More than a quarter of our students are on a path precipitously close to the cliffs and are at risk of falling off.
Prior to conducting a survey with a more representative sample of SBCC students, a final revision of the SAS instrument was made. Based on additional suggestions from SBCC faculty, and with a desire to increase the predictive validity of the instrument, four additional items were added. These included items related to high school grades, degree of participation in cooperative learning, frequency of intoxication, and overall satisfaction with the college experience. Items were also weighted to reflect their relative strength of relationship with GPA in the calculation of the total score. Questions were included to assess demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, amount of part-time work, current course load, major, semester at SBCC, educational attainment of parents, educational goals, language of childhood, birth order and sibship size. The revised 19 item instrument was renamed: the Self-Assessment for Success Screening Inventory - SASSI, a copy of which is included in Appendix A.
A random sample of courses offered at SBCC during the Fall was selected.The 51 introductory 100 or 101 level courses were listed in alphabetical order and numbered. A random numbers table (Spatz, 1977) was used to select 20 courses for administering the SASSI instrument. To represent more advanced students, the 20 advanced 200 series courses were also listed and from which 10 courses were randomly selected. Solicitation for instructor assistance, guidelines for the administration of the instrument, and a packet of survey forms were forwarded to the instructors whose courses had been selected. Instructions included a request to administer the survey within two weeks following midterms. Seventy percent of the instructors administered and returned the surveys.
In the sample of 784 students surveyed, 55.5% were female. Ages ranged from 16 to 61 with an average age of 22.8, median of 20 and mode of 19. Seventy-four percent of the students worked part-time: 36% less and 38% more than 20 hours a week. English was a second language for 16.5% of the students; 41.5% were in the first or second semester; 65% had goals of pursuing a four year degree or higher. Student majors were represented as follows: 13.5% were in the Health and Human Services Division, 14.7% were in the English/Communications Division, 5.4% were in the Fine Arts Division, 5.7% were in the Technologies Division, 4.1% were in the Business Education Division, 51.4% were in the Social Sciences Division, and 5.2% were in the Sciences Division.
The results from this survey are presented in greater detail in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 presents a summary of the percentage of responses in each scale level of the 19 SASSI items. For instance, with regard to item 14 focused on the amount of time spent studying outside of class, 40.1% put in two to three hours for each hour of class time; 26.9% put in a half hour or less. Managing time is problematic or worse for 42.5% of the students. Information provided in Table 1 serves as a base rate on the norms of student behavior and experience. This base rate information can be useful to students when comparing their own self-assessment to the norms of student behavior.
When the SASSI items are divided into problematic and non-problematic categories and then averaged across the 19 items, then one can conclude that on average 75% of our students are able to manage the demands and challenges of SBCC courses relatively free of serious problems and/or difficulties. Alternatively, 25% are in another boat, floundering and in need of attention. Moreover, 9.2% are having a very difficult time and in danger of failing.
Table 2 provides a summary of significant gender differences in the degree of problems students experience. With the exception of math and computational assignments in which women report significantly more difficulties, men report doing significantly worse in 11 of the 19 areas assessed. On average, men watch more television, get intoxicated more often, have more difficulty managing time, participate less in class, attend classes more poorly, study less and are less likely to seek help.
Table 2 also summarizes the correlations between GPA, total SASSI score and the individual scale items. For the sample as a whole, all 19 items were significantly related to GPA, four of which were significant for men but not for women. The correlation of -.53 between the SASSI score and GPA is considerably stronger than the correlation of .35 reported with the College Factors Success Index. For males, the multiple r. of -.67 indicates that 45% of the variance in GPA can be accounted for from variations in SASSI assessed student behavior. Of the 19 items assessed, four were particularly strong predictors of GPA: math difficulties, high school grades, time management and attendance.
Demographic and situational factors were associated with some of the variation in student SASSI scores and GPA. The following differences were statistically significant, based on t-test comparison of means with alpha set at .01 unless otherwise indicated. The average SASSI score for men was 56.3, and 51.7 for women , which is also associated with a slightly higher average GPA of 3.13 for women compared to 3.05 for men (p. <.05). Men also reported significantly lower levels of satisfaction with the college experience. Age was significantly correlated with SASSI and GPA. The average SASSI score was higher for students under twenty-one (55) compared to (52.4) for those twenty-one or older. Older students also had a slightly higher GPA of 3.17 compared to 3.00 for those under twenty-one. Younger students were also less satisfied.
Students for whom English is a second language had lower SASSI scores but otherwise were the same in average GPA and satisfaction with the college experience. The amount of student part-time work did not correlate with GPA nor with SASSI scores. The only significant difference between those work part-time and those who don't was a lower level of satisfaction with college for those who work 20 or more hours per week. Similarly, levels of parental education did not correlate nor distinguish students with regard to SASSI scores nor GPA. The educational goals of the students did make a difference. Those with higher goals scored lower in SASSI and higher in GPA. Finally, significant and interesting differences in SASSI scores, GPA and satisfaction with college were found based on the academic division. These findings are summarized in Table 3.
The normative and correlational results from this survey show that particular student behaviors are significantly associated with student success. The predictive validity of the 19 item SASSI is considerably stronger than the 80 item College Factors Success Index. As a self-assessment instrument for students, it works well.
To help serve as a self-diagnostic instrument, a "college degree" scale, analogous to a thermometer, was developed to help students interpret their total SASSI score. To calibrate the college degree scale, an analysis of variance was performed in which the total SASSI score was treated as the dependent variable. The independent variable was based on grade point average, which was divided into 9 levels to represent letter grade categories with + and - distinctions. Since there were significant gender differences in total SASSI scores and in the magnitude of correlations between SASSI and GPA, separate ANOVAS were performed to determine the average SASSI score associated with each of the grade categories. For males, the SASSI scores ranged from an average of 44 for As to 72 for D. For females, the SASSI scores ranged from an average of 38 for As and 62 for Ds. A constant (26 for males and 30 for females) was then added to the total SASSI scores to bring the scale into the temperature range suggestive of being cool, warm, hot or boiling. This use and function of this "interpretive device" is shown on the backside of the SASSI in Appendix A.
Self-assessment and self-diagnosis were design criteria in developing the SASSI instrument. To help serve as a self-referral instrument, the resources and services available to students on campus are described on the backside to the SASSI instrument. For those students whose scores are indicative of difficulties, referrals are listed that are specific to the areas in which attention is indicated.
On a more general note, it is more empowering to students to provide them with instruments and tools for their use and potential benefit than to provide instruments to those already professionally trained. The developmental tasks for students is to grow into greater self-reliance and independence; to learn to do for themselves; to engage in metacognition and self-awareness; to monitor, correct and direct the course of their own dreams, aspirations and action plans. In this context, the SASSI instrument, based on the contributions of many faculty and students, can contribute to the dreams and successes of our students.
Hallberg, Hallberg & Sauer, (1993). The College Success Factors Index. Sierra Madre, Ca: Ombudsman Press.
Mandel, H. P., Friedland, J. G. & Marcus, S. I. (1996). Achievement Motivation Profile. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Association.
Spatz, C (1977). Basic Statistics. Tales of Distributions (6th Ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Strategies for Promoting Student Success in Their Courses. Santa Barbara City College Student Success Committee, August 1996
| back |